Rolling Stone greatest artists

rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231

what does Sup Forums think of this list?

Other urls found in this thread:

rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-new-immortals-20130305
youtube.com/watch?v=tgDtHlD4KP8
rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-songwriters
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Let me guess. The Beatles is #1.

correct, and the description is absurd. apparently they're virtuosos because George could sing AND play guitar, and Ringo's drumming had a "unique feel."

Prince is too low

well he has that on most of his contemporaries in rock, in all fairness

Dylan should be number 1.
Lol at elvis and beatles

the Velvet Underground should be 1

The velvet underground should be number 2

after Prince

Is rolling stone even relevant in this day and age?

Lil B should be #1, or at least the highest rapper

don't forget this!

rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-new-immortals-20130305

I threw up at Elvis Costello. Fuck this shit.

bongs , jews

youtube.com/watch?v=tgDtHlD4KP8

... BAD NEWS!

was it ever relevant

its so annoying how rolling stone tries to pander to and please everyone.

>Eminem
>The Eagles
>Ac/Dc
>Madonna
>The Ramones

“No”

Dylan shouldn't be that high, Bob Marley should be practically nonexistent, Elton John should be higher, Billy Joel should at least be SOMEWHERE on the fucking list, as should Electric Light Orchestra and Chicago, the Who should be higher, the Byrds and Kinks should be higher, some of the disposable doo wop and girls groups can probably go like Martha and the Vandellas, but it would have been nice to actually see the Ronettes on here

Anyone wanna talk about the greatest songwriter list?

rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-songwriters

>Bowie ranked lower than Jackson fucking Browne?

Oh and obviously the Rolling Stones should be lower, top ten maybe but number 4?

you need to listen to more dylan. he's one of the few artists i could consider deserving of the top spot

I've been through his entire discography actually (minus Self Portrait, maybe I'll have the courage one day)

I don't know, in terms of folk/electric folk I was always more affected by Neil Young and Paul Simon than Dylan, though I understand how influential he was on them of course

I generally don't have a problem with Rollingstone, but goddamn does this list suck.

i've never had a chance to really sink my teeth into paul simon but the little i have heard i've liked. neil young is on par with dylan imo, speaking of which, where was he on the list? i don't want to give rolling stone anymore clicks

Why should Bob Marley be nonexistent? Are you one of those "Reggae sounds the same" people?

And Billy Joel, ELO and Chicago? Really?

They are the easily the greatest and most influenial musicians of the 20th century. Bar none.

I've had a problem with Rolling Stone that was sealed when they printed "Justin Bieber: Hot, Ready, Legal" on the cover when he turned 18

Is Jerry Sandusky the new demographic of this magazine

This. George and Ringo (even though they were in the band) should not be remembered.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney were The Beatles.

Lennon wrote most of their most memorable and influential hits so arguably Paul should just be consigned to the wastebasket of history too

3rd. After (1) Paul McCartney and (2) Brian Wilson.

Certainly not easily. Charley Patton, Robert Johnson, Chuck Berry, Duke Ellington etc could be claimed to be more influential.
And greatest is entirely subjective, I find them to be nothing more than a good rock and roll band

You've got that completely and absolutely backwards.

the Beach Boys as a whole deserve to be there, it's not fair to discount their legacy just because Brian was the principal genius

>Chuck Berry
>Louis Armstrong
>Captain Beefheart

you are dead wrong

Neil Young was 34, but also 17 on the greatest songwriters list

what ballbag wrote this wank, too much american shite, no stone roses or oasis, load of fucking shite

>They are the easily the greatest and most influenial musicians of the 20th century. Bar none.
No. Actually no.

I mean it's not like they included Linkin Park or Green Day or White Stripes either, after the Radiohead generation the list basically discounts rock overall

Then so do the Beatles. (1) Beatles, (2) Beach Boys. I have no reservations about that.

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaa

Who the fuck did Captain Beefhart influence that Frank Zappa did not? Also, Frank Zappa still wouldnt make the top 10 most influential musical artists of the 20th century. Definitely the top 20 though.

It's common to refute the classification of the Beatles as the most influential musical act of the 20th century, but literally what other alternative is there

Please tell us who had more exposure to the younger music artists of the 2nd half of the 20th century.

So now it's reserved only for young music artists of the 1960s and beyond?
But I thought you said they were easily the most influential artist of the entire 20th century?

>Who the fuck did Captain Beefhart influence that Frank Zappa did not?

literally every relevant rock musician who came after him

I don't know about greatest artists in terms of songwriting ability, influence, etc., but in my view Roy Orbison was undeniably the greatest singer of the rock era

Captain Beefheart did not influence any of the popular rock artists of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s on a substantial level. I can guarantee you that. Otherwise we would have had The Captain Beefheart Anthology right around 1996 because of persistent influence.

Yes he was talented, but he was sure as shit an afterthought of 60s rock music.

you are so wrong it hurts

fucking Kurt Cobain even acknowledged him as an influence

Duke Ellington and Bob Dylan

ya live in a cave pal

I wish they wouldn't put Miles Davis on their lists. It implies they're either trying to claim him as a rock artist or they were actually considering jazz artists and decided he was the only one in a 100 year history who's any good.

thanks user. he deserves to be higher

That's the only reason they do it, to try and claim credibility and that they aren't rockist plebs. Hence why in Top 100 Albums you see 3 jazz albums: Kind Of Blue, A Love Supreme and Bitches Brew all in the top 20s but also comfortably behind and subservient to The Beatles, because that's the entire point.

>the Eagles are present at all

Is there any group that coasts as much on Boomer nostalgia rather than objective talent

they had two good songs and one of them was written by the guy they kicked out (Don felder)

>Kurt Cobain
He talked about REM, Pixies, Queen, Wipers, and Cheap Trick waaaaaay more than Captain Beefheart. Check pic related for Cpt. B (spoiler: he's not there)

My thoughts exactly to you young internet cretins who think that Sup Forums-core has ever been relevant.

Disgustingly English biased.

>no Moz
List discarded

>all time
two or three genres
70 years
>all time

Don't you have homework to do or some shit?

>100 Greatest Artists
>The Beatles, Eminem and more of the best of the best
This is the plebbest fucking shit I've ever read.

>cries self to sleep at night knowing I'm right